>>>disks. The logic for choosing 4 MB was to ensure that any >>>full table scans (in our case 128 KB) would avoid having the >>>multi-block reads split into two reads due to the required >>>blocks existing in more than 1 "stripe".

a 4MB stripe width will reduce the odds there will be cross-stripe
reads, but in no way eliminates it. The planets do not align that
way.

>>>>>>IMHO I'm not sure why IBM are recommending why you should go >>>as large as 32 MB.

I'm still surprised to hear there is such a thing as a 32MB stripe
width on a DSXXXX array... maybe they meant 32KB (which would be a
trainwreck) ?